Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

2 Vladimir Gel'manconclusions on the meaning and significance of recentralization for theRussian political system. 1Federal Reform: the swing of the pendulumDecentralization in Russia during the 1990s was anything but the result of aconsidered policy from the federal Centre. It was more a side-effect of thetransformational processes that in Russia were accompanied by sharp intereliteconflict, a severe and sustained economic collapse, and a serious fallingaway of state capacity. These processes did have their effects on Russia’sregions, not directly, but rather through two closely related trends.First, the decades of soviet (and pre-soviet) development had left theirlegacy in terms of centre–regional relations and in the development of theregions themselves. The soviet model of regional administration was stronglyinclined towards hierarchical centralization of power and resources, heldtogether by the vertically integrated structures of the CPSU and the USSRlevelministries and agencies, including the security sector (army, police andKGB). In the regions, depending on administrative status (republic, krai,oblast'), level of socio-economic modernization, pattern of settlement, sectoraleconomic profile and a number of other historically acquired factors,the conditions were created for particular types pf political and economicrelation in the post-soviet period. Therefore the decentralization of the 1990sand the recentralization of the 2000s were path-depend.Second, different critical junctures in the process of Russian transformationopened up different ‘windows of opportunity’ for political actors, thebalance of forces between whom, and their motives, were to influence thecharacter of Centre–regional relations.This ‘legacy’ bequeathed a constraining framework which set limits to thechanges that could occur in Centre–regional relations, but did not determinethem: the vector of these changes was largely the result of specific steps takenby Russian politicians. 2The effects of path dependency and the influence of political actors onCentre–regional relations in the 1990s have been described in some detail inthe literature. Commentators have noted the role of the ethnic model offederalism, established by the Soviet regime, 3 of disparities in socioeconomicdevelopment between regions, 4 of the unintended consequences ofthe fall of the Soviet Union, which left in its wake ethno-political conflicts inRussia’s regions, 5 and of the serious weakening of the administrative capacityof the Centre in its relations with the regions. 6 The struggle between elites atfederal and regional levels for resources and spheres of influence, the Centre’sattempts to win over the regions to its side in electoral campaigns, 7 andsimilarly the varying constellations of elites at the level of each region 8 haveall left their stamp on these processes. In summarizing the evaluations ofdifferent commentators on Centre–regional relations in Russia in 1991–8,one may identify the following trends: